Subjects: Subjects: Terrorism; Colin Powell; International Criminal Court; Free Trade Agreement.
E&OE...........
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, you might want to ask me some questions. Can I just briefly say, as you';re aware I saw the Secretary of State, had lunch with him, and we covered the whole gamut -- Afghanistan, India-Pakistan, the Middle East, our own region. It was a very comprehensive, open, free-flowing lunch and I found it a quite invaluable opportunity to be brought up to date on the thinking of the Secretary of State on all of those issues. Certainly, as he indicated in the joint press conference, some progress in relation to the Middle East, but there';s still a long way to go, and in relation to India-Pakistan the judgement does appear to be that although it still remains very tense, there has been some measurable easing of tension over the past little while. A lot of the credit for that is due to the work of Richard Armitage and others from the Administration who';ve worked very hard to bring that about, but there has been a cumulative attempt, including from Australia, particularly by the Foreign Minister, to encourage reserve and caution.
I';ve also been on the Hill, as they say, this afternoon. I';ve met the Republican leadership and also Senator Baucus who is the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Democrat Senator from Montana, and we talked about trade matters and I';ve been arguing Australia';s cause in relation to free trade agreement and pointing out the benefits from the United States in relation to that. In trade matters you have to be completely pragmatic. You have to point to benefits for other countries that you do deals with and not just assume, which is never the case, that they will do a favour without something in return. I regard spending time talking to Congressmen as very important. It';s fair to say that this visit of mine is very intensive in that respect. It';s not just a visit to talk to the Administration and coincidentally to say hello to Congress. It is very much a recognition by me, which is the reality, that in the American system you have to engage the Congress and the legislature as much as you engage the Administration, particularly when you';re dealing with things like Trade Promotion Authority, free trade agreements and the like, and you look at the content of this visit you will see a very heavy emphasis for that reason on Congress. Not the least of course, the opportunity of addressing a joint sitting tomorrow, which I';m looking forward to.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) Baucus?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it was a good open, very candid discussion. He of course represents a state which, among other things, has lambs, I think.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, can I ask you a double barreled question if I may? Firstly, both Trent Lott and the Secretary of State have indicated that Australia will be consulted about any military action against Iraq. Did you have any discussions about what that mechanism of consultation might be? And secondly, how do you reconcile the message that';s coming from Dick Cheney which is talking about first strikes against Iran, Iraq rather, versus Colin Powell who says there are no war plans on the table.
PRIME MINISTER:
I';m going to have dinner with the Vice President tonight, so ask me tomorrow.
JOURNALIST:
Well I';m asking you now.
PRIME MINISTER:
I know you are, but I';m inviting you to ask me tomorrow. Look I';m not going to get into theories about differences. I thought the Secretary of State gave an immaculate answer today and I agreed with it.
JOURNALIST:
What about the point about consultations? Is there a mechanism for consultations?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it';s hypothetical. Look hang on, this is unrealistic, with respect. It';s hypothetical to talk about a strike against Iraq, quite hypothetical. The principle is stated that if any action were taken, Australia would be consulted. To then go on and say well what form will that consultation take, assumes that a decision has been taken.
JOURNALIST:
No it doesn';t. I mean it assumes that…
PRIME MINISTER:
No, well let me say this that I';ve said before that if we were ever asked to participate or support it, we would consider that at the time, if it happened, on its merits. Now we would naturally expect to be consulted and I';m sure we would. As to the mechanism, well I haven';t turned my mind to that. We don';t have an array, an agreed mechanism for consultations. That';s, given that it';s a hypothetical issue and there';s no particular game plan, I think that';s a question that, in a way, ought not to be asked. I mean, any question can be asked, but I mean it';s premature to ask that question.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, you talked about Colin Powell talking about our region. Can you give us some more information on that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh we talked about Indonesia and East Timor. Again, as I';ve done to many people I';ve spoken to since, I praised the action of the President of Indonesia in going to the independence celebrations in East Timor and commented upon the very warm reception that she received in Dili on that occasion and that I felt that the relationship between Australia and Indonesia at a government level had improved significantly.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister on trade, if President Bush is given Trade Promotion Authority, what would be the timeframe for finalising an FTA with Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think the operative question is commencing negotiations. I think, if we do get to a negotiating state, I think it would take quite a deal of time before those negotiations are finished. It';s going to very difficult. I would hope that if Trade Promotion Authority is given that we could start fairly soon, but I can';t start getting into weeks and months on that.
JOURNALIST:
On TPA did you urge Senator Baucus to progress that matter, because he';s obviously a key gate keeper in the Senate on this issue?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well yes, I put my case to him. Yes, I did.
JOURNALIST:
…from him about the prospects for the two TPA bills to be reconciled (inaudible) the White House';s concerns…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I think he';s in favour of getting Trade Promotion Authority, yeah.
JOURNALIST:
What did you tell him were the advantages for America from a deal with Australia?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the complementarity of our markets. I said to him that Australia was a sophisticated economy in our part of the world, that there were advantages in the service sector, potentially, for the United States. A free trade agreement with Australia would represent a demonstration to the region of the advantages of involvement with the United States economically and therefore that would be of advantage and help to the United States in expanding its influence in the region.
JOURNALIST:
Was there any support in discussions on free trade about agriculture having to be in a free trade agreement?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well agriculture has to be addressed in the context of a free trade agreement.
JOURNALIST:
Was that accepted by your interlocutors?
PRIME MINISTER:
My interlocutors? Well, I think in relation to the discussion with Senator Baucus I pointed out that the issue had to be addressed and he understood that. We both recognise that there are going to be formidable challenges. We made the point that there are some areas in which you might be able to reach an agreement in relation to agriculture while leaving some of the infrastructure the same.
JOURNALIST:
But that';s not a free trade agreement.
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
That';s not a free trade agreement.
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh, look a free trade agreement means a whole lot of things.
JOURNALIST:
Did you leave with any sense that this Trade Promotion Authority is any closer? Was there any sign to you that there would be movement up there?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well the impression I have is that it is getting closer, but I acknowledge that processes move according to their own pace and their own way. I';m not going to sort of make predictions about that, but certainly everybody I';ve spoken to, both in the administrative branch and in the legislative branch, has said they';re in favour of Trade Promotion Authority. But when it actually happens I can';t control. I mean I find it hard enough to control things happening through my own legislature.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, at your departure statement at the State Department, you made a point of commenting on Colin Powell';s observation about refugees returning to Afghanistan. Were you trying to…
PRIME MINISTER:
I made a point of…
JOURNALIST:
…referring to the fact that Colin Powell had noted that the situation was such in Afghanistan…
PRIME MINISTER:
I didn';t think he said that, I thought I said it. Yes. I said that in the context of what he';d said about Afghanistan.
JOURNALIST:
Exactly.
PRIME MINISTER:
Yes.
JOURNALIST: Were you trying to make a broader point there about Afghani refugees in general, and asylum-seekers? PRIME MINISTER: I wasn';t. I was just making the observation that it was an illustration of the greater stability in Afghanistan that so many hundreds of thousands of refugees would have returned. There was no sort of hidden message in that Jim. No. There wasn';t. JOURNALIST:Prime Minister, did Colin Powell talk about terrorism in the region?
PRIME MINISTER: Oh yes, we talked about that. Yeah, we did. JOURNALIST: Is there an increased risk? Or increased … PRIME MINISTER: No there was nothing he said today that would suggest that the risk now is greater. No. JOURNALIST: Are there particular countries that have been highlighted, such as The Philippines? PRIME MINISTER: Well we talked generally about what has happened there and some of the concerns in relation to Indonesia. JOURNALIST: Was there any suggestion of the need to coordinate activities between Australian and American authorities to deal, or to keep tabs on…? PRIME MINISTER: Well those things happen. I mean we have a very close intelligence association, as you know. There is none closer. And the mechanism is there now. JOURNALIST: …further military commitment? A house keeping question, just no further military commitment? PRIME MINISTER: No I haven';t made any, I have not been asked to provide. I have not been asked by the Americans to provide additional Australian military assistance. PRIME MINISTER: Prime Minister, one more question. Refugees, Afghani refugees returning to Afghanistan. The United Nations says that the pressure is such that they';re running out of money. Their budget or their program in Afghanistan is almost gone and they say they won';t be able to continue. Do you think that countries like Australia and other countries involved in the coalition in Afghanistan should consider increasing their commitment to the UNHCR for that? JOURNALIST: I haven';t seen that statement therefore I won';t respond to that except to say that we have already given a very significant amount, including additional money only a few months ago to the UNHCR, but I haven';t seen that statement. PRIME MINISTER: …makes sense that people returning there over a period of a few months would place an incredible pressure on the United Nations officials on the ground. PRIME MINISTER: Obviously the whole thing puts a lot of pressure on them, yes. I';m not denying that, it';s just that I haven';t seen the context of the statement and I don';t want to say any more except to add that one of the things that we have in mind is to provide people with financial support who might want to return. And that does have the effect of easing some of the pressure, so that ought to be kept in mind in assessing the quality of Australia';s response. JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, what';s your reaction to the Americans'; announcement about the American citizen that they';ve arrested and about the kind of attack he was allegedly planning, and how prepared is Australia to deal with that sort of attack? PRIME MINISTER: Well I guess I';m like everybody else – I';m glad he was arrested. If he was planning to do the things that is alleged, of course I am. We are as prepared, I guess, as any country in our position, with the scale of threat we have, can possibly be. It';s very difficult when you';re dealing with a situation like this where people are prepared to behave in such an utterly destructive fashion to ever say you';re totally invulnerable. I mean nobody is invulnerable. I mean I';ve said this since September the 11th. I think I said it on the grounds of the Australian Embassy residence before I left to come home. I said then that nobody could assume it was immune from these sorts of attacks. I mean the scale of risk is probably lower for Australia than the United States, but it would be higher for Australia than many other countries. JOURNALIST: Mr Howard, given the opportunity that you have tomorrow to address Congress, in your speech, how strongly will you be making the case for a free trade agreement. PRIME MINISTER: I';ll be arguing for a free trade agreement. I won';t be spending the whole speech doing that. It';s a speech about the total relationship. It';s history, it';s emotional content, it';s shared values, it';s not the sort of occasion where you spend the whole time arguing the narrow focus of a free trade agreement, but I will certainly be putting the case for a free trade agreement and I will be certainly be making plain our unhappiness with the Farm Bill. I would be less than frank if, I mean good friends have the obligation of candor, but I';ll certainly be making very plain the high store that Australia and I personally place on the relationship and the depth and the strength of that relationship. JOURNALIST: On the Farm Bill, will you be making much of it? PRIME MINISTER:
I';ll be saying what I just said… I';ll be making it plain that we don';t like it. JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, Senator Baucus was a, from recollection, a key figure in the decision by the Clinton Administration to ban Australian lamb imports. PRIME MINISTER: Yes, your recollection is correct. JOURNALIST: Can you give assurances to Australian farmers that they won';t be sold out in any FTA with the Americans? PRIME MINISTER: Well they weren';t sold out by us on lamb. I mean we not only fought it but we won. And lamb imports have burgeoned. They';ve done very well. The Australian farmers are not going to be sold out.JOURNALIST:
But that';s only one aspect of… PRIME MINISTER: Yeah I know, but I mean I';m sorry Steve, I don';t see the connection. I don';t know what you';re getting at. Look we';re not going to sell out the Australian farmer. It';s the last constituency in Australia that will ever be sold out by the Howard Government. JOURNALIST: Mr Howard, on a domestic matter, the Vietnamese flagged vessel which prompted your Government';s decision to excise more of the migration zone, has that been picked up yet? PRIME MINISTER: I';m not aware of any vessel being picked up. What do you mean picked up? JOURNALIST: Has it been intercepted? PRIME MINISTER: Well I';m not aware of any vessel…. I mean I';m here in Washington and things happen sometimes that I';m not aware of. But I have not been advised of any vessel being apprehended by Australian Navy assets. JOURNALIST: Do we know for sure? Do you know for sure that it exists? PRIME MINISTER: Do I know for sure that it exists? Well I';ve not seen anything, no. JOURNALIST: You';re obviously receiving briefings on… PRIME MINISTER: Well I mean the question is based on an assumption. I think we have indicated that there was some information to the effect that there might be a vessel that is jumping around the place. JOURNALIST: There haven';t been any developments in that? PRIME MINISTER: I have not been informed of any further developments there. Let me put it that way. JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, in your discussions with Senator Baucus and Senator Lott, did you get any indications that attempts by some Senators to add conditions to the Trade Promotion Authority to do things like protect American dumping action, might be successful? PRIME MINISTER: Not specifically, no. I mean our discussions were based on the understanding that as part of an ultimate deal on Trade Promotion Authority, bits get added or taken away but there was no particular reference to that, no. JOURNALIST: The administration has said that if there are certain conditions put on it, then the President will refuse to sign the Bill and then veto it. PRIME MINISTER: So be it. JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, just back to your talks with Mr Powell this morning. What specific concerns did he raise with you about terrorism and Indonesia, you mentioned earlier?PRIME MINISTER:
There was nothing raised that was qualitatively different from what has been raised before. I mean there is a concern about potential for terrorist activity there. But there is also a recognition that… of the understanding and the awareness of the Indonesian authorities about it. There was nothing… there were no new areas that lifted the threshold of concern or lowered the threshold of concern.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister Howard, in general terms when you talked to Colin Powell [inaudible], did he talk about any changes, any new increased risk? I don';t mean in the region. I mean in general.
PRIME MINISTER:
No he didn';t. He didn';t do that. I mean we spent some time talking about it. And we also spent a great deal of time talking about the Middle East and India and Pakistan.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, on the International Criminal Court, you met with Stephen Hadley yesterday. Did he change your view?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well my view is… as I have explained to the Australian Parliament, the matter is being re-examined inside the Government and I am listening to the arguments. And when I have heard all of the arguments, I will make up my mind. He explained to me in some detail why the United States will not ratify and the concerns they have.
JOURNALIST:
Do you understand those…
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I certainly understood very very clearly the argument he was putting.
JOURNALIST:
Are you persuaded by it?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that is asking me to anticipate the decision that I might take. I haven';t taken a decision. I am listening to the arguments. And when I say I understand an argument clearly, I mean you can understand an argument and not agree with it. I';m not saying that is the case here. I';m just making the point that I fully understood the argument he was putting and it was a very powerful argument.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think there are any parallels between the problems the US sees with the ICC and Australia';s potential relationship with an ICC?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there are always parallels because we have essentially the same judicial system, we are both open democracies. Of course there are potential parallels. But that applies in relation to the benefits as well as the demerits of the ICC.
JOURNALIST:
Does the US have a position on whether other countries should or shouldn';t ratify it?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, he didn';t… I have not been asked and I don';t expect to be asked, or lobbied in any way by the administration not to ratify it. I mean it hasn';t happened yet. I';m not saying it won';t. I';ve still got one or two significant people to meet. But thus far I haven';t been lobbied. I mean I certainly wasn';t lobbied for example by the Secretary of State. I don';t think the Americans… I';d be surprised if there were any serious attempt made on that. I mean they should naturally accept that that is entirely a matter for us. I mean I sought this meeting because I wanted to understand in more detail the basis of the American concerns.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, was [inaudible] treatment of the US military?
PRIME MINISTER:
I beg your pardon?
JOURNALIST:
Did he talk about the treatment of the US…
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh yes, yes. Well that';s open. That';s known that they are concerned about the impact it might have on the role of American peacekeepers.
JOURNALIST:
In fighting terrrorists?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well just generally.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, what discussions did you have with Secretary Powell about the condition and future of the Australians at Camp Xray?
PRIME MINISTER:
We didn';t discuss it.
JOURNALIST:
Not at all?
PRIME MINISTER:
No.
JOURNALIST:
With your final decision Prime Minister on the ICC, how much weight will you put on the views of your Party Room?
PRIME MINISTER:
Appropriate weight.
JOURNALIST:
Which is how much?
PRIME MINISTER:
It';s always appropriate. I mean I always listen to my Party Room. Always do. I am a consultative leader. And I may have been a Leader of the Liberal Party now for a very long time and Prime Minister for a number of years, but I always consult the Party Room and listen to what they have got to say. And they have every right to be heard on this. It is not one of those things where a quick decision, where people are required in our system to put their faith in the instant judgement of the Party Leader or Prime Minister. It';s not one of those issues. I mean in the end I will have to make a call on this, but I do want to hear what people have got to say and I think it is the sort of thing where it is only proper I do.
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible] you might be left with agreeing with half the Party Room.
PRIME MINISTER:
Once I have made a decision I am sure everybody will support it.
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, you talked about the closeness of the relationship and the importance of the relationship. Is it sort of harking back to the all with way with LBJ days?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look… hear my words, read my lips and nobody else';s.
JOURNALIST:
Just back on trade. You mentioned that in terms of what we offer in return, I think you said opportunities in services. What will you mean by that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well there is enormous scope in financial services and IT and all those sorts of things. I mean it';s enormous. Australia is in many ways the financial community services gateway to the region as far as a country like America is concerned. We have wonderful living conditions, relatively low costs, extraordinary capacity to speak the languages of the region. I pointed out to Senator Baucus that in Sydney the foreign language most frequently spoken are the dialects of Chinese. And he was quite surprised to hear that. He didn';t know that. Very few Americans understand that. And it is a very powerful thing as far as our penetration is concerned. People don';t understand it.
JOURNALIST:
Can you be any more specific in terms of what incentives or what might be done…
PRIME MINISTER:
Look no, no I can';t be Steve. I mean look, we haven';t even started the negotiation. I';m not going to start talking…
JOURNALIST:
It';s just that you highlighted financial services.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that';s an area. But I mean I';m not going to start talking about what we might offer or not and so forth. Look we have to be realistic about this. I think there is great opportunity in relation to free trade, a Free Trade Agreement with the United States. But it';s going to be very difficult and we shouldn';t have unreal expectations and it may not come off. And it';s going to be very difficult to achieve. The other point I did make to Senator Baucus that I should tell you is that I complained about the Farm Bill to him. And I said that I understood that nothing could now be done about the Farm Bill because it had become law. But what it did highlight is that you have this situation where you have got Europe and America and Japan and you have got a situation now where total agricultural protection by the OECD is three times the aggregate of overseas development assistance to developing countries. Three times. And if you got rid of that protection, that would be three times more valuable to the developing countries of the world than all of the overseas assistance that they get from Governments. I mean I keep hearing about European Governments talking of giving more money to developing countries through aid and exhorting the rest of the world. And all the while, they are imposing on those countries a burden that is treble what they are now giving. Now I made that point. I mean… and in the end the only way you are going to break this is by having American leadership in the World Trade Organisation along with Australia and the Cairns Group. That is the only way you are going to bust that. And what we have to do is to whilst complaining about the Farm Bill, we have to look beyond that as to what happens next. And what happens next has got to be in the arena of the Doha round and the World Trade Organisation. But I mean the statistically, financial reality of agricultural protection is horrific with its impact on developing countries. And we are entitled to complain about this because we are a developed country and we don';t provide protection and assistance to our farmers. I mean the reason why our complaint is so legitimate about what the Europeans are doing and what the Americans have done and the Japanese are doing, is that we don';t provide assistance to our farmers and they are very efficient producers. And they have every reason to complain.
JOURNALIST:
If we are such good friends of the United States as Senator Lott said, what do they offer by way of apology for this kind of act?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well every country has a domestic constituency. You all know who said that, you know, politics was local. And every country… I mean I understand the reality of that. I mean there is no point in sort of not recognising that. I mean you won';t get anywhere in the end if you don';t recognise that. What you have to do is, you have got to accept what you can';t change but try another way of making progress. And what I said to Senator Baucus and what I have said to other people is that what we now have to do… I mean the Farm Bill has happened. We';re unhappy about it. I have made that clear. What we now have to do is to find a way, working with the Americans through the World Trade Organisation, to bring about some across the board trade liberalisation in agriculture. Now that is the only way out. I mean the Americans won';t move unilaterally. They will continue to provide protection for their farmers, and additional protection, because the European';s level of protection is much higher than theirs and of course we get squeezed by the combination of the two. Well the only way you are going to sort of cut the Gordian knot is to get some action in the World Trade Organisation framework. And that has really in my view got to be with American leadership in partnership with the Cairns Group and led by Australia. I am convinced that you won';t get any leadership on it from the European Union and I think it has to come from the United States.
JOURNALIST:
The actions of Congress suggest that they are actually going in the other direction.
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if you don';t have action multilaterally through the World Trade Organisation, you get domestic pressure to provide additional assistance. And of course that has happened. I mean that is why we are unhappy. I mean I can';t disagree with that. But I am trying to look beyond it. I mean people are saying, what are you doing about the Farm Bill? Well, the Farm Bill is not going to be repealed because Australia complains about it. I mean let';s be realistic. It';s not. The Farm Bill is a response to a whole lot of things. It has happened. It is law. We are going to work our way through it. I think you all want to go away and file. Go away and file. Otherwise your editors will complain and I do not want you denied the opportunity to come on these visits again in the future.
JOURNALIST:
Can I just ask you on the issue of Telstra, there are reports that they are going to sack staff and increase prices all in the name of a declining share price. Do you have any comments about that?
PRIME MINISTER:
I have not heard the reports and I therefore have no comment to make.
[ends]